On February 5, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) that aims to ban transgender women from participating in women's and girls' sports. This is the fourth order concerning transgender people that Trump has signed since his inauguration, with others relating to gender classification, gender-affirming medical care for minors, and transgender military service. Trump strongly opposed transgender participation in women's sports throughout his campaign, so executive action on the issue was widely expected in the administration's early days.
The EO, "Keeping Men out of Women's Sports," interprets Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prohibit transgender male-to-female persons' participation in women's and girls' sports. Specifically, the Trump administration takes the position that allowing transgender women to participate in women's sports deprives cisgender women of "equal opportunity" as required by Title IX.
This EO comes on the heels of a federal court's invalidation of a Final Rule reflecting the Biden administration's interpretation of Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Trump EO directs the Secretary of Education to ensure compliance with the federal court's decision and to take "all appropriate action to affirmatively protect all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms." In doing so, it prompts the Department of Education (ED) to update Title IX regulations to explicitly prohibit transgender participation in women's sports. Amidst ongoing efforts by President Trump to dismantle ED, including the implementation of a large-scale reduction in the agency's force, it's not clear when ED will begin the rulemaking process.
Other major provisions of the EO include:
- Directing the Secretary of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions and athletic associations that allow transgender participation in women's sports
- Requiring executive departments and agencies to review grants and rescind funding to institutions that allow transgender participation in women's sports
- Directing the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy to convene with major athletic organizations and governing bodies to adapt policies that align with the EO
- Directing the State Department to order changes to the standards used by the International Olympic Committee, which have historically aligned with global governing bodies, to align with the EO
Almost immediately after the White House issued "Keeping Men out of Women's Sports," the NCAA issued a revised Participation Policy for Transgender Student-Athletes. The revised policy aligns with the EO in disallowing student-athletes assigned male at birth from competing on NCAA women's teams, but does allow such athletes to practice with women's teams. The policy also expressly states that schools remain subject to local, state, and federal legislation and such legislation supersedes the rules of the NCAA. Importantly, it may be difficult for schools to reconcile the EO with the many state and local laws that protect transgender individuals from discrimination.
There have been several notable cases making their way through state and federal courts on the issue of transgender participation in sports at all levels. For example, in July 2024, New York Attorney General Leticia James sued Nassau County in Long Island over a law that excludes transgender women and girls from participating in any girls' and women's sports, leagues, organizations, teams, or programs held at any public facility or venue. The Long Island Roller Rebels, a Nassau-county based women's roller derby league, filed a similar suit at the same time, arguing that the local law violates NY state and city anti-discrimination laws. The Roller Rebels moved for a preliminary injunction to stall enforcement of the law, but the court denied the injunction in late January. The Roller Rebels appealed the ruling to the requisite NY appellate division last month. The AG suit is still pending, but has not seen recent activity.
Calls to ban transgender athlete participation in women's sports began in Congress even before President Trump's inauguration, and continue today. On January 14, the House of Representatives passed a bill, the "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act," seeking to codify the Trump administration's interpretation of Title IX. Specifically, the bill would make it a violation of Title IX for federally-funded education institutions to "operate, sponsor, or facilitate athletic programs or activities that allow individuals of the male sex to participate in programs or activities that are designated for women or girls." However, in early March, the bill failed to advance after a successful filibuster by Senate Democrats. Congressional efforts did not stop there—on March 11, a group of Republican members of Congress sent a letter to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) urging it to adopt eligibility rules that would prohibit transgender athlete participation in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. Currently, the IOC follows the eligibility standards set by the governing bodies of each sport, and maintains on its website that it "will not discriminate against an athlete who has qualified through their [international federation], on the basis of their gender identity and/or sex characteristics."
In recent years, several states have passed legislation purporting to ban transgender participation in athletics in some form, and there are many active lawsuits challenging those laws. For example, two New Hampshire students filed suit in August 2024 to oppose HB 1205, a state law banning all transgender girls in grades five through twelve from participating in school sports in public schools. Notably, the court recently allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add claims directly challenging "Keeping Men out of Women's Sports" as unconstitutional. The amended complaint added President Trump and other federal officials and agencies as defendants, and seeks both declarative and injunctive relief. This is the first suit to challenge "Keeping Men out of Women's Sports," though many other EOs face active lawsuits on similar bases. In addition, challenges to West Virginia and Idaho laws prohibiting transgender male-to-female participation in female sports that have had success in the federal appellate courts, and these suits may be heard by the Supreme Court.
We expect legal challenges to transgender sports bans to continue, and questions remain about whether the EO will survive legal challenges, and if it does, how federal agencies will enforce it. That said, ED and the Department of Justice have both made efforts to advance the EO's policy. For example, ED announced investigations of three higher education entities for "apparent Title IX violations" as a result of the EO: San Jose State University, University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. The administration has also commenced such investigations of various public school districts nationwide. Similarly, in the weeks following the EO, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent letters to three states, California, Maine, and Minnesota, warning that they risk legal action if they do not ban transgender participation in women's sports. On April 16, the administration acted on these warnings and filed a civil lawsuit against Maine, alleging that the Maine Department of Education's policy of allowing transgender athletes to compete in women's sports violates Title IX. As the administrationconducts investigations of national, state, and local educational institutions, we expect such institutions to face continued threats of legal action and/or restrictions on federal funding related to past or existing transgender participation policies.
In the wake of the EO, some schools have already removed transgender inclusion policies from their websites in response to the EO, and we expect most schools participating in NCAA athletics to align with the NCAA's revised policy. But at the state and local level, we expect to continue to see differing approaches. For example, the Illinois High School Association issued a statement shortly after the EO came out recommitting to its transgender participation policy based on adherence to Illinois state law.
In sum, schools will need to review their current policies in tandem with the policies of their governing bodies, athletic conferences, and state and local law. Venable will continue to monitor the situation in the coming months. If you have further questions about how "Keeping Men out of Women's Sports" will impact your organization and its programs, please contact the authors of this article or any other attorney in Venable's Labor and Employment or Sports groups.